![]() Those who were heavily involved in fitness felt that intuitively they were right in both cases but they had no real theory to support their personal experience and those who were studying human physiology and muscle growth were looking, as it turned out, at the wrong things which led them to create the wrong theory. How right are they? Until recently all we had to go by was some anecdotal information on the first context and some poorly understood studies from the 70s regarding the second. In the second it is used to suggest that muscles have some kind of on-board memory regarding the way they move, for example when you learn to throw a ball or duck a punch or, even, learn to ride a bicycle which allows them to perform it again at a much later date even if we have not been practicing the move for a while. ![]() In the first instance it implies that muscles have a kind of memory when it comes to fitness and can snap back into it after people have let themselves go a little or if they have lost their level of fitness from a layoff due to injury. Nothing quite shows that complexity more clearly than “muscle memory”.īecause the term “muscle memory” is used in two different types of context it is worth looking at each one in turn to better understand what is going on and what it is we are actually describing. Fitness is the outcome of many different factors that work together to achieve it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |